A moderated collaborative forum for Canadian Reformed (and other) students and academics to engage issues of Christianity and culture. Note: Please see our introductory post if you're new here. The editors of Reformed Academic are not responsible for the opinions expressed by contributors.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Book Review - Holtvlüwer’s Foundations: Sermons on Genesis 1-3

Late last year, Canadian Reformed minister Rev. Peter Holtvlüwer published a book of sermons on the first few chapters of Genesis. With respect to discussions we’ve had on our blog, it is clear that the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is very important for how we understand the doctrine of creation as well as how we frame conversations regarding Scripture and science.

And so we approached Dr. John Smith, professor of Old Testament studies at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, to undertake an academic review of Holtvlüwer’s Foundations: Sermons on Genesis 1-3. Dr. Smith received a Ph.D. in Septuagint Studies from the University of Toronto in 2005 after writing a dissertation on the Greek translation of the book of Psalms. He served as minister of the Word in Albany, Western Australia, for five years, until last year when he moved back to Canada with his wife Darlene and their three sons and two daughters. Dr. Smith retains his ministerial status with Providence Canadian Reformed Church in Hamilton, Ontario.

We are grateful for Dr. Smith’s engagement and careful review, which you can find in our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is given here.

3 comments:

I appreciate Dr. Smith’s careful and generous review of Peter H. Holtvlüwer’s book Foundations, and hope that it will initiate a discussion on some of the issues Rev. Holtvlüwer brings to the fore. I myself intend to focus, for now, on the book’s remarks regarding the Sabbath (Sermon 5). My concern is with the question whether the Sabbath was a creation ordinance, and as such applies to all people at all times and places, or whether it was first promulgated at the time of the Exodus and must therefore be seen as “basically an Old Testament, Jewish institution.” The author chooses the first alternative. I question that choice.

By stating this I do not want to imply that I fail to appreciate Rev. Holtvlüwer’s book as such. I have read it and, although I disagree with it on a number of points, I appreciate much of its message. It is, as Dr. Smith points out, “faithful, instructive, engaging, and edifying,” and also very pastoral. My critical comments are meant to be altogether constructive. I sincerely hope (and indeed I am quite confident) that they will be received as such.

In commenting on the author’s view of the relationship between Sabbath and Sunday I will not deal with his exegetical arguments. Dr. Smith has already done so. I also realize that there are few direct indications in the Bible as to when the Sabbath command was given (although I wonder if Ezekiel 20:12 does not suggest that it was done at Sinai). In any case, my intention is not to find direct evidence for or against, but to suggest some of the implications of the book’s stance on the Sabbath. The best way of doing so is to look at the history of the debate — for there indeed is a history: questions about the meaning of the Sunday have been raised for centuries, and in fact are still being raised today. As some readers may remember, the matter gave rise to a lively and at times heated discussion in the Canadian Reformed Churches some five or six years ago, a discussion that was caused by a conflict on the issue in their Dutch sister churches. Part of the Dutch membership insisted, like Rev. Holtvlüwer, that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance so that there is a direct link between the O.T. Sabbath and its laws and the Christian Sunday. The various Dutch Synods that dealt with the matter, on the other hand, declared that “Scripture does not compellingly show such a connection,” and that both views have therefore always, and rightly, been allowed in the Christian Church.

Not all the opponents acquiesced, and the synodical decision became one of the reasons for some 1250 members to secede from the Dutch federation. The conflict did have the positive effect, however, of stimulating an in-depth study on the nature of the Christian Sunday and the way in which it relates to and differs from the O.T. Sabbath. This report, which still deserves our careful study, served as explanation and justification of the Synods’ decisions. It contained, among other things, (1) a study of biblical data on the fourth commandment, the Sabbath, and the Christian Sunday, and (2) a lengthy description of the different opinions which over the centuries were held on the issue in the Christian Church. Attention was given to the attitude of the early church, the usage in the Middle Ages, the teachings of the Reformers, and the dominant practice in the post-Reformation centuries.

I have earlier given an extended summary of the report and the synodical discussions and will not repeat myself here; those interested are invited to read the original article (or the report itself).* I do, however, want to mention a few of the article’s salient points. For one thing, Sabbatarianism (the equation of Sabbath and Sunday) first arose in the Middle Ages, and it did so mainly for utilitarian reasons. It had not been the practice of the early church, was again rejected by both Luther and Calvin, but would return to dominate much of the post-Reformation centuries. Reformed churches, including the CanRC, were not excluded. There was a discrepancy here, however, for officially these churches confess an anti-Sabbatarian and more spiritual view of the Sunday. I am referring to the description of the fourth commandment in Lord’s Day 38 of the Heidelberg Catechism. The explanation of this Lord’s Day is in accord with the interpretation of John Calvin, who taught that the Sabbath is a sign or shadow, which has been fulfilled in Christ and is therefore abrogated. There must indeed be rest on the day of worship, Calvin says, but the rest that God requires is first of all of a spiritual nature, a laying aside of our evil works to let God by his Spirit work in us. (See on this Calvin’s Institutes, II, viii, 28-34.)

The Dutch report reminds us of the fact that we are no longer living under the old covenant. The New Testament stresses, for example in the Sermon on the Mount, the intensifying of the commandments, unerlining their deep spiritual meaning. Calvin teaches this as well and he clearly draws out the implications of a non-Sabbatarian interpretation and practice. He points out that thanks to the sacrifice of Christ, Christian believers have more freedom with respect to the day of rest than the Old Testament Church. The increased liberty gives also greater responsibility, however. We are to keep the Sabbath not just one day, but all our days. And therefore, Calvin warns, “whenever people are full of ‘envy, rancor, ambition, cruelty and guilt,’ they break the Sabbath commandment. But when they dedicate themselves to God and submit to the guidance and governance of his Spirit, then they faithfully observe the substance of the Sabbath command…. From that perspective, the spiritual keeping of the Sabbath is far more demanding than the mere external observance of the day. Anyone can take external rest from labour, but only by the grace and Spirit of God can people rest form their sinful works and allow God to work in them redemptively” (H. Primus, Holy Time: Moderate Puritanism and the Sabbath, 128f.).

In conclusion: The Sabbatarian view has often been dominant in the worldwide church and it is specifically taught in the Westminster Confession. As the Dutch Synods repeatedly stated, it is certainly not to be condemned. Nor do I condemn it. I am concerned, however, that we forget what I believe to be the more Scriptural interpretation as taught by the early church, the Reformers, and the Heidelberg Catechism. Therefore this comment.

*For my article see Clarion, 28 April 2006, pp. 214-220. The report in question has been published in book form under the title Zondag, Heerlijke Dag. Part of it has been translated into English and was posted on the Dutch churches’ website under “Engelse artikelen.” On the same website a number of commentaries and summaries appeared as well. I have consulted these documents. I have further made use of the summary of the report by K. de Vries, one of the synodical deputies, in De Reformatie, 8 and 15 January 2005. See further the document “Sunday – The Lord’s Glorious Day,” which appears in the same Clarion issue as my article and summarizes many of the Synods’ arguments and teachings.

For background information I have further made use of John H. Primus, Holy Time: Moderate Puritanism and the Sabbath (Mercer University Press, 1989), Willy Rordorf, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Early Centuries of the Christian Church (SCM Press, 1968); and P. Visser, Zondagsrust en Zondagsheiliging (Kok, 1959).

Pages

Helpful Links

Contacting Us

You may E-mail us (including your real name) if you have a question you'd like for us to address in this forum. If you request, we will leave your name out when we reply. Signed comments on posts are also welcome (see below each post).